Submission
by Statewatch to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European
Union, sub-committee "E" on the proposal to combat
terrorismBackground

In the wake of the events on
11 September in the USA the European Commission proposed a Framework
Decision on combating terrorism (COM(2001)521 final, 19.9.01)
and the Council responded to the proposal (doc no 12647/01, 10.10.01).
The Home Office Minister submitted an Explanatory Memorandum
in October.

The Commission proposal

The European Commission proposal
for a Framework Decision to combat terrorism is intended to put
in place a definition of terrorism, penalties and sanctions,
extradition procedures and mechanisms for exchanging information.

The key provision is that defining
terrorist offences (Article 3) which says, each Member State
according to its national law shall ensure that:

"the following offences..
which are intentionally committed by an individual or a group
against one or more countries, their institutions or people with
the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying
the political, economic or social structures of those countries
will be punishable as terrorist offences"

It then sets out these offences
(and penalties "maximum penalty not less than" in Article
5) as:

"instigating, aiding,
abetting or attempting to commit a terrorist offence".

Article 5.3 alternative penalties
to custodial sentences:

"alternative sanctions
such as community service, limitation of certain civil or political
rights"

and 5.4. provides for fines.

The inclusion of "community
service" and "fines" suggests that the proposal
extends beyond what is conventionally termed "terrorism".

Terrorism to include "acts
of urban violence"

The question thus arises whether
the proposal is solely intended to "combat terrorism"
or does it have a wider purpose? Is it the intention to extend
the definition of "terrorism" to cover demonstrations,
protests and political dissent as well?

The breadth of the definition
is surprising if the proposal is intended to only combat terrorism:

1) The inclusion of the term
"seriously altering.. the political, economic or social
structures" by "an individual or group" suggests
a wider purpose is intended;

2) The inclusion in Article 3.f.
of the "Unlawful seizure of or damage to state or government
facilities, means of public transport, infrastructure facilities,
places of public use, and property" (property covers public
and private) could embrace a wide range of demonstration and
protests - ranging from the non-violent Greenham Common Womens
protests against a US Cruise missile base in the UK to the protests
in Genoa;

3) The phrase in Article 3.h.:
"endangering people, property, animals or the environment"
could refer, for example, to animal right protests;

4) The inclusion in the "Penalties
and sanctions" Article 5 of "community service, limitation
of certain civil and political rights" and of fines suggests
that the proposal might have a wider objective than dealing with
terrorism. The seemingly soft end of the sentences and the deprivation
of rights could see demonstrators being charged as "terrorists"
and, for example, losing their vote.

The answer to these questions
is spelt out in the "Explanatory Memorandum" accompanying
the proposal. It says that Article 3 defining terrorist offences:

"could include, for instance,
urban violence"

This would appear to confirm
that the intention is to extend the definition of "terrorism"
to cover public order situations. Moreover, the Justice and Home
Affairs DG of the European Commission now has a web page on the
issue of: "Terrorism - the EU on the move". The preamble
to background and documentation states that is concerned with:

"radicals suspected of
violence"

This too suggests a much wider
concept of "terrorism".

The Commission proposal is either
very badly drafted, or there is a deliberate attempt to broaden
the concept of terrorism to cover protests (such as those in
Gothenburg and Genoa) and what it calls "urban violence".

The Council's response

The Council of the European Union
has proposed a wider definition of "terrorism" and
would extend it to those who aim to "seriously.. affect..
an international organisation"

It has put forward a different
definition of "terrorism" to that put forward in the
European Commission's proposal. The most significant difference
is to change the word "altering" to "affecting"
which would broaden it scope. Where the Commission's definition
reads that a "terrorist offence" would include actions
seeking to: "seriously altering or destroying the political,
economic or social structures of a country" the Council's
definition would include actions:

"with the aim of seriously...
affecting or destroying the political, economic or social structures
of a country or of an international organisation"

The Council's version thus not
only widens the definition of "terrorism" to action
which might "affect" political, economic and social
structures but, ominously adds actions seeking to seriously "affect"
an "international organisation". Such a broad definition
would clearly embraces protests such as those in Gothenburg and
Genoa.

Ireland and UK have proposed
the deletion of the word "seriously" which would extensively
broaden the scope of the definition.

In addition, the insertion of
the words "in particular" suggests that intimidation
is not the only example of action which might affect, or seriously
affect, the status quo.

The Council's definition, under
point (f) below does slightly narrow the contentious "terrorist"
offence of "seizure of or serious damage to state or government
facilities, means of public transport.. places of public use
and property" by adding the word "serious" - however,
this does not remove the concern that this could be used against
protests and non-violent actions.

Question in the House of Commons

In the House of Commons on Monday
15 October the David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, Home Secretary
avoided answering a question on the scope of "terrorism".
Chris Mullin MP, chair of the parliament's Home Affairs Select
Committee, said there was a long history in the UK of "anti-terrorism
legislation being introduced in haste and repented at leisure".
He tried to pin down the government on the proposed definition
of "terrorism" and asked:

"The EC may be proposing
to cast the net a little too wide. Will he ensure that whatever
definition [of terrorism] is finally agreed is robust, watertight
and confined to dealing with terrorists and not with other people
who might, from time to time, get up the noses of the established
order?"

The Home Secretary did not answer
this question - which leaves wide open the issue of whether the
EU definition of "terrorism" extends to protests and
"urban violence".

Home Office Explanatory Memorandum

The Explanatory Memorandum offer
no explanation on the scope of the proposed definition of terrorism.

Conclusion

In our view it is quite unacceptable
that the definitions of "terrorism" put forward by
both the Commission and the Council should extend to cover protests
(such as those in Gothenburg or Genoa) or to "urban violence".
The definition should be amended to exclude such situations.